Wednesday, May 30, 2012

The Labour party is beyond a sick joke. The debauchery portrayed by that poisonous creature Helen Klark has filtered down amongst the moronic ranks of the radical feminists and homosexual activists that make up the nut bar political party. It makes me sad to think my tax pays for these ridiculous people to represent my interests. I detest all these time wasting parasites. Who needs such rubbish? Time for change New Zealand, enough is enough.

Monday, May 28, 2012

A colleague in the Fathers rights movement from Australia Fathers4Justice sums up the unlawful gender discrimination orchestrated by a sinister Family Court who enjoy persecuting so many decent father's and paternal grandmothers. RIP Mum.

"Its pretty simple. But preserving a child's relationship with both parents takes away the problem - and that problem is a multi $Billion golden goose for the industry - lawyers, courts, psychologists, psychiatrists, councillors, social workers govt funded women's rights campaigners, govt funded feminists, so called child protection workers (protection from what? emotional security and parental love?). Government won't act to protect our children for fear be targeted by this child abusing industry for not supporting women's rights!"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/9291621/The-law-should-be-helping-a-child-to-have-two-parents.html#disqus_thread

The author is the Sunday Telegraph's Public Policy Editor.

Sunday Telegraph

The law should be helping a child to have two parents

A host of social problems are made worse by the dismal way that 'contact disputes' are handled by the courts

By Alasdair Palmer

26 May 2012

Every year, thousands of couples make their way through the courts, trying to resolve disputes about how to share the upbringing of their children. It has become a crushingly expensive way of creating single-parent families. Nearly half the parents (fathers, usually) who go to law in the hope of increasing the contact they have with their offspring end up losing touch with them completely within two years.

The Government is aware that a whole host of social problems are made worse by the dismal way that “contact disputes” are handled by the courts. The statistics show that children deprived of one parent do less well at school, are more likely to end up on benefits, addicted to drugs, or involved in crime.

It’s pretty obvious that a basic goal of policy in this area ought to be to ensure that children have relationships with both their mother and their father. And yet there is nothing in the existing legislation which even encourages the courts to aim for that outcome. So they don’t. The absence of any such requirement is one reason why so many disputes spend years in court without resolution, and lead to the creation of new single-parent families.

A little-noticed provision in the Bill on families and children in the Queen’s Speech earlier this month could help to remedy that depressing situation. It proposes that both parents should have the right to a meaningful relationship with their children, and that the courts should recognise that right – subject to it being compatible with the safety of the child.

This is a momentous change, with the potential dramatically to improve the way the courts process child contact cases. But for reasons that aren’t clear, it generates enormous hostility.

The Coalition was advised against it by the Norgrove Report, which the previous administration commissioned to examine ways of improving family law. Mr Norgrove insisted that evidence from Australia – which introduced legal provision for a “meaningful relationship” with both parents in 2006 – showed that the result was that children were placed in situations where they were at risk of violence. He also said it had led to more litigation.

His claims have been comprehensively demolished by Patrick Parkinson, an Australian professor of family law. Litigation on child custody cases in Australia did not go up: it went down by a third. And an examination of the evidence showed that Norgrove’s claim that the “meaningful relationship” provision had led to children being put at risk of violence was “without foundation”.

The Government is to be congratulated for having had the courage to ignore Norgrove and insert into the Bill a requirement that both parents should have a meaningful relationship with their children. It is an important start – but it is only a start. If a “meaningful relationship” is not itself defined, it will only become an opportunity for more arguments in court about what it means. The result will be that it means nothing, and so does nothing to improve the chances that both parties in a divorce retain secure ties with their children.

The definition does not need to be put into the new statute, and probably could not be. But it can and should be inserted into the guidance that will dictate how the family courts operate.

Norway has a simple default position in divorce cases: the absent parent gets to look after their children every other weekend. Many states in the US have the same sort of rule. Something similar could be introduced here. It would greatly diminish litigation, and increase the chances that children would have a relationship with both of their separated parents.

In opposition, the Conservatives promised to introduce directives that would help the family courts to produce fewer single-parent families. It will be a dreadful indictment of their performance in office if they fail.

Legal Authority Warns: Family Lawyers are a Family Health Hazard

A number of important legal test cases are under way to challenge the State and Federal Governments’ claims that they have the legal power to regulate family life – beginning with the vexed issues of family violence allegations and false allegations.

The Victorian Magistrates (Family Violence) legislation and Victorian Police and Magistrates Court actions and orders enforcing those laws are unconstitutional because they violate section 109 of the Australian Constitution. The same can be said for State family violence legislation, State Police and State Court enforcement actions in every other State and Territory.

Family violence matters are wholly and exclusively matters of federal jurisdiction for the federal courts by virtue of the federal Family Law Act 1975 and section 109 of the Australian Constitution.

We can’t have State Courts running family violence matters because this doubles up with and interferes with and works against the federal Courts applying the federal laws and federal court procedures that address family violence issues. The result is failure of due process of law, double jeopardy and other human rights violations and injustices. These are the reasons that the Constitution (generally, and section 109 specifically) outlaws State Governments from making laws that double up with federal laws and federal jurisdictional processes.

Thousands of cases of false allegations of family violence are identified every year.

These sorts of false allegations are almost the rule rather than the exception in family law matters. The legal system encourages them. They are almost guaranteed to happen whenever a marriage breaks down and custody and family assets is at stake.

In family law cases it pays to get in first and make false allegations against your former spouse before your former spouse gets in and makes false allegations against you. Perjury laws are all but ignored by the courts. Even when the judge finds one of the parties has perjured themselves making false allegations it almost never proceeds as far as the person being charged or punished. The courts almost always go along with the first to make the allegations and treats the late runner as a copy-cat just making things up. But the first set of false allegations are usually the most callous, most calculated, and most false of the two.

Usually these false allegations are made for collateral reasons including for financial gain as well as manipulation, power or revenge. The most common scenario is where the biological mother, lawyer-ed up with government funded lawyers, cuts a biological father (and therefore all of the paternal side of the children’s extended family, grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, half-siblings) out of any future part in the childrens lives. Ever so occasionally, it is a lawyer-ed up biological father who (because he is cashed up beyond the reach of mum’s lawyers) is able to get in first and manipulate the system the other way round so that it is the biological mother who is squeezed out. Whichever parent is squeezed out of their children’s lives, the financial and emotional pain exceeds the worst tortures that our otherwise civilised society imposes on the worst criminals.

Usually it is the lawyer-ed up mother who raises allegations of physical and sexual violence against her formerly beloved spouse, so that she can move into a relationship with a new man with a better property settlement and weekly maintenance and social welfare payments than if the children lived equally with each of the parents like should happen under International laws such as the UN Declaration of The Rights of the Child.

Perhaps the reason the law is so dysfunctional is simply that the the State and Federal Governments have a perverse economic incentive to see the biological father squeezed out. This ensures that the governments extract the most taxes from the dad, the women extracts the most maintenance and child support from the dad, and therefore the woman’s social welfare costs to the State are minimised.

Whatever the reasons the reality is that most State governments direct disproportionately more legal aid funding to women and virtually no legal aid funding to the men. And in these situations it is the lawyer-ed up party who always emerges as the winner. But not much of a winner once the huge legal costs are deducted. The only winners in the family law system are the family lawyers, never the children and never their litigant parents.

The lawyers always emerge as the biggest winners. Sometimes they are the only winners, with both the former spouses left homeless and penniless. The lawyers win from the process, and win even more with the more delays they can create instead of producing any outcomes, and the lawyers win regardless of what those final outcomes are for the parties – often the only point of any final property settlement orders being made is to settle the monies to be handed over to the lawyers (mum’s lawyers and/or reimbursing mum’s government litigation funder).

These false allegations of family violence fuel a $45 Billion dollar per annum family law industry which turns over about 100,000 more divorce couples and their 300,000 children, every year. With every court case typically stretching out over 4 to 9 years, it’s the 30,000 family lawyers who mostly reap the financial benefits of this industry with large amounts of taxpayer funds to begin with and large amounts of divorce estate assets winding up in their pockets during and at ‘conclusion’ of the hostilities.

$40 Billion, the wealth of 100,000 newly divorcing couples (about $400,000 per family) is processed through Australian family lawyers offices and courts every year. Family assets are frozen (put into the effective control of the lawyers and law courts) years ahead of any trial. The trauma of separation, and painfully protracted legal processes lead to job losses, increased financial difficulties and fuels a huge part of the banking and financial industry with repossessions of family homes and cars, which wipes off about about 50% of this wealth ($20 Billion a year). Of the remaining two quarters, Australia’s 30,000 family lawyers take a quarter ($10 Billion a year, or $333,000 per family lawyer.)

But the 30,000 family lawyers also benefit another $33,000 each as their share of $1 Billion a year in State governments legal aid funding for family lawyers, giving them a typical annual income of $366,000.

This legal aid funding is so lucrative that in the UK the family law firms are collectively suing the UK legal aid fund (the UK Legal Services Commissioner) for proposing to cut in half the number of family lawyers eligible to receive this extra government funded income.

On top of this another crop of family lawyers, the judges, registrars, associates, para-legals, administrative officers, security and other support staff of the family courts benefit from $4 Billion of taxpayer funds spent by the federal government to fund the operation and upkeep of the family courts. This equates to $40,000 for each of the 100,000 newly divorcing couples that the family court system starts processing every year.

And each of those newly divorcing couples could do with a $40,000 piece of that $4 Billion.

Firstly, more than half of all divorces are triggered by financial problems.

Secondly, at the end of the family court process, once the repossesors have taken two quarters, and the family lawyers have taken their quarter and moved on to new clients, the divorced couple is left with the stark reality of having fought over only a quarter of the assets that they held prior to their divorce.

They still have the same number of children to raise and provide for, but one or both may have lost their jobs and/or be subsisting on welfare and they now have to fund (rent) two one-parent homes instead of the one (owned) two-parent family home that they used to share before the legal proceedings. A couple that had $400,000 prior to the divorce has now become two individuals beaten up by the legal system fighting over a share of the $100,000 left over to them after two quarters of their wealth has been taken by repossesors (and pumped back into the banking and lawyer economies, but that’s another story) and a third quarter taken by the lawyers actioning the case (mum’s lawyers and her government litigation funder). Hardly surprising that both mum and dad are fighting even harder over and each wants the biggest if not the whole slice of the last quarter, which is all that the system lets them keep.

No wonder divorcees (male and female) are left so bitter and ruined from the process. No wonder divorce proceedings are so bitter and easily inflamed, and delayed, to the financial benefit of the family lawyers controlling the situation. And no wonder that whole areas of suburbs are now springing up where divorced-single parents in two’s and threes are sharing rental accommodation. This is all that they can aspire to in the new financial order once the divorce proceedings are over. And they could not have imagined it (and their lawyers would not dream of telling them to expect it) at the beginning of the divorce process.

And no wonder there are frightening statistics on depression, crime, self-harm and suicide springing up amongst those who have been through the emotional and financial effects of the divorce process either as parents or as children and have been driven from reasonable prosperity to abject poverty in the process.

For example, statistics collected by the Dads on the Air from Child Support Agency data reveal that the number of “CSA clients” (non-custodial parents who pay child support) who have died for the 3 years since the Rudd-Gillard Government was elected stands at 12,493. The CSA-Death Toll for September 2010 alone was 448 deaths: equivalent to 15 deaths every day: http://dadsontheair.squarespace.com/csa/[Note: these statistics were kept and published monthly from late 2007 up until late 2011, when they were abandonnd, and that webpage was “data cleansed” without explanation. See here for a grim reminder of what these now cleansed statistics used to expose.]

Parting couples are temporarily not at their best emotionally and judgement-wise. They are in the early stages of grief over separating and dealing with emotional concerns over the underlying reasons for the relationship breakdown. They know very little about lawyers or how lawyers operate. They probably have not had much to do with lawyers before. They are lambs to the slaughter.

It is hard to think of a more obvious group of consumers who are vulnerable and need consumer protection laws and advocates to protect themselves, their homes, their children, even their livelihoods and their lives from circling predators. And yet, as the statistics show, the laws leave them totally exposed and vulnerable to predators. It’s as if the predators are the protected species, not the weak and the vulnerable.

Whenever allegations of family violence are made in the context of a separation or a divorce, there should really be a presumption that the allegations are false. The accuser must be required to prove them ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ with substantial independent evidence. This is consistent with the concept that an accused (ex-spouse or parent) is “innocent until proven guilty.” And the hearing should proceed like any other criminal trial of violence charges – even including a right to a jury if the accused wants one.

But in practice these basic legal safeguards, these basic human rights, are never given to a man accused of family violence.

In the lax standards of these family courts and state family violence court hearings these allegations are regularly found even against biological dads of impeccable history and character. It is as if they are presumed guilty until they prove their innocence. And no amount of evidence is enough for an accused dad to prove his innocence even if he has demonstrated 4 decades of impeccable character.

Nobody condones violence in any of its forms. Not violence against family members. Not violence against strangers. Certainly not violence where children are the victims.

But it is a sad reality that the legal system, and all of its lawyers (policemen, solicitors, barristers and judges) treat men who actually commit violence against non-family members with much more dignity and respect for due processes and human rights than they show to honest, compassionate, decent hard-working family men in distress (and, occasionally, thoroughly decent, compassionate women in distress) who are falsely accused of violence against their own family members and loved ones.

James Johnson

Independent Federal Candidate for Lalor

This is a very slightly re-touched version of a blog that I first published 15 October 2010. You can view (and obtain a “print-friendly” version of the original blog here.If you “enjoyed” this piece, you may want to read some of my other writings on Australia’s crooked, corrupt, unconstitutional killer family law system, such as my blog entry for my stage play “The Crucible”. You can download an A4 Theatre Promotional Flyer here. All of the script for “The Crucible” is taken directly off the court transcripts of a real life family law proceeding that took place in 2010 (the names of the family are changed to protect the innocent – and to comply with draconian Federal “no disclosure” suppression laws that serve to protect the “evil” more so than the innocent, by hiding the victims from public scrutiny and support).“The Crucible” is in the process of being rewritten as a screen play, for filming and production later this year.You might also “enjoy” reading my blog entry for my stage play “Soylent Green and Gold”, the second play in my series “The Lie of the Law”. You can download an A4 Theatre Promotional Flyer here.

“Soylent Green and Gold” which demonstrates to the world the extraordinarily corrupt lengths that the Australian Federal and State Governments are prepared to go. The “unelected for life” governmen of our judicial benches are prepared to openly flout the Constitution, and their constitutional and judicial responsibilites. So are the unelected (and mysteriously often hereditary) governmen (and governwomen) on the public service benches (the executive branch of government). And so do the “elected” governmen and goverwomen on our parliamentary benches, who are at the beck and call of their bureaucratic and judicial colleagues (who keep them re-elected), forsaking their primary government function of our elected parliaments – to protect us from the tyranny of unelected bureaucracy and unelected judiciary. Why protect us when it is so much easier, lucrative, and fun to join in on the tyranny (with no electoral downside because it is all kept off the public and media agendas).

Our peak Australian governmen and governwomen are prepared to engage in and to “white card” gross violations of Australian citizen’s fundamental human rights, abandoning all pretence of constitutional, limited government or “rule of law” to prevent Australian citizens from having blatantly unconstitutional family violence legislation struck out for constitutional reasons.

Monday, May 14, 2012

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Documentary on the Bio Channel about Men & Middle AgeDear Men's Health Australia,
Greetingsfrom London! After doing a bit of internet research about how to get in touch with mens' groups inAustralia, I wanted to write to tell you about a documentary film I made - 'TheMiddle Men' - that will be broadcast on the Bio channel in Australia onthe 30th of May @ 10 pm. (see listing here: http://www.biographychannel.com.au/featureddetail.aspx?ID=1298).

You may have indeed already heard about 'The Middle Men' as I have been in touch with several men's groups already, including one of your partners, the Men's Advisory Networks.

'The MiddleMen' explores how 8 men living and working in the UK are experiencing the phasewe've come to know as 'middle age'. I became interested in this idea because asa woman I felt the media spends a lot of time covering how women feel aboutgetting older, but little time exploring how men are responding to it. And aswe all know, the stereotypes of men in middle age tend to be quiteunflattering!

Making thisfilm has been quite an adventure and I am trying to let people in Australia whoI think may be interested in the topic of the film know about the broadcast.Would you mind spreading the word to your men's group and anyone else you thinkmay be interested? We had a lot of good feedback about the film from men's groupsin London as well as from Mind, the mental health charity based here in the UKas they had spearheaded a campaign exclusively about the mental health of men afew years ago.

If you areinterested in finding out more about the film (and would also like to watch atrailer) you can check out the film's website here: www.themiddlemenfilm.com

If you dohappen to catch 'The Middle Men' on Bio on the 30th of May @ 10 pm anddo like what you see, please consider sending feedback to the Bio channel sothat the film can be broadcast again. The link to do that is here: http://www.biographychannel.com.au/feedback.aspx.

Friday, May 11, 2012

THERE is no substitute for parents of both genders. Happy heterosexual marriages are the best environment for the mental health of children.
Many people think – but have been afraid to express it – that married couples in a loving relationship provide our children the best opportunity to prepare for a fulfilling and happy life.
A report released this week, titled For Kids’ Sake and authored by Professor Patrick Parkinson of the University of Sydney, is a sober reminder of this.
It says, in part: “The wellbeing of Australia’s children and young adults has declined sharply in the past decade, and …sliding marriage rates are partly to blame”.During my 11-year leadership of beyondblue, the national depression initiative, I have become increasingly concerned that so many children starting out in primary school are already stressed and anxious – at only five years old.
Sadly, in most cases this stress and anxiousness is a direct result of the family learning pattern many children receive and observe at home.
I further contend that the first seven years of a child’s life are the most important as this sets the values for children for the rest of their lives.
Clearly the best environment in which to bring a child into the world is a stable, loving environment in which a male and female are married to each other.
The existence of both genders is the environment in which that child will live his or her life — in a wider community where both genders are almost equally represented.
A loving environment, where the young child observes good practices, is more important than any instruction that attempts to set values such as respect, honesty, punctuality, hard work, reward and, importantly, love.
The second point I would make is that when marriages break down and the children of that marriage are young, the breakdown can have a profound effect on the children of that marriage.
So often I have heard adults from a broken marriage respond: “They are handling it well,” when asked how the children are managing the break-up. Sadly, that is so often superficial.
While on the surface the children may be handling the break-up well, many are internally traumatised. That can lead to so many issues developing not only in the short-term but later in life.
Many adults I have spoken to about their depressive illnesses have referred back to an unhappy childhood and/or the separation of their parents.
Sadly, many adults take their marriage vows lightly. It is perhaps an indication of the plastic society we live in today, where everything is changeable and tradeable. When challenges arise, some people feel it is best not to work through them but to walk away from the responsibilities that are a part of every relationship.
With changes to family law in the 1970s, many marriages have become more easily disposable. This should never be the case, particularly when children are involved.
As adults I think it is incumbent on us to do all we can as parents to resolve issues within a marriage, in the interests of those we have seen fit to bring into the world. Or at least until they have reached a mature age to handle any separation of parents.
Clearly, where a marriage is irretrievable, there is perhaps no alternative to separation. As an indication of how seriously we at beyondblue take stress and anxiety among children, we have spent more than $15 million on research over the past 10 years. The by-product of this work helps in dealing with children’s mental health needs.
All of this is a major piece of work, and the KidsMatter initiative, concentrating on early childhood mental health, is now being rolled out throughout the country as quickly as possible.
Importantly, the KidsMatter Early Childhood program, for children between the ages of one and five, could prove to be the most significant work yet done by beyondblue. The trial is due to be concluded by the middle of next year, and it could prove to be profoundly important to those parents who have young children.

Many people ask me why there is so much stress, anxiety and depression in Australia, so often referred to as “the lucky country”. The answers are many, but one which is patently clear is the breakdown in marriages and the declining number of marriages within our society.

Professor Parkinson, in the recommendations within his For Kids Sake report, has strongly recommended that the Federal Government should fund many activities.
I have a concern with this approach because governments, federal and state, are already funding research and programs, and because such a recommendation again removes responsibility from individuals and attempts to transfer it to governments.
But governments are not the trend-setters in values, or good behaviour. We as individuals are, and we must again accept responsibility for ourselves, our behaviour and the examples we set for our children.
All we can do is give our children the best possible opportunity in which to start their lives – being part of a family that is based on a marriage, in a loving relationship, that stands the test of time.
Jeff Kennett is a former premier of Victoria.
An interesting side-note to this research has been the complete rejection of the dual-parent platform by the Gillard/Labor government, which is soon to pass what is commonly referred to as the anti-father family law amendment, otherwise known as the family violence bill. The intent of this bill is to remove all fathers from meaningful contact with their children in the event of separation

Thursday, May 10, 2012

FOR YEARS, A large poster hung in the window of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa’s Women’s Resource Centre (WRC) that made the following (among others) mysandric statements on “steps to preventing rape”:

1. Men should keep to well-lit areas and should be accompanied by Protection officers.2. Men should wear bells around their necks at all times.3. All family members and friends of men should always know where men are and what they’re doing.

Would an organization that is truly “concerned with equality for men and women” display such a poster? Were the possible emotional reactions of male victims of sexual assault upon seeing this poster ever taken into account?

The WRC has the power to lead positive change. They could have used their window space to lead the way on important issues that men face, such as child custody discrimination, criminal court discrimination, higher drop out rates in high school and at the University of Ottawa, uneven distribution of workplace deaths, selective involuntary armed forces service, developed-world prevalence of male genital mutilation, higher homelessness rates, higher unemployment rates, and higher rates of North American institutional sexual assaults.

It is indeed a shame that they instead chose to contribute toward the vilification and ridicule of men in the U of O community.

There is no way to tell if the women behind the poster were serious or joking. But the fact is that men can be raped too, and this is no laughing matter.

University of Ottawa Men’sResource Centre Collective

The Men’s Resource Centre’s goal is to make the public aware of men’s issues and the manner in which they are interconnected in larger societal pattern of discrimination, ignorance, and harmful public policy that in many ways disadvantages boys and men. We focus on positive activism to advance a healthier society

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

A police officer holding a 20-month-old baby had to jump out of the way of a
fleeing car during the incident yesterday.

As my readers know full well d4j has had a bit of drama - static and track record with the feds over the years after I was shafted by the feminazi family court. We all know it was lies nowadays, but all is good at present, until they come again?????Only joking boys in blue, anyway, well done getting this maniac off the road. Deadbeat dads who try to kill kids need a bullet to the head. Scum like this piece of shit make it hard for the justice system too determine the good dads from bad dads. I was a good dad, who got fucked over big time by police for being a bad dad. Hardcore stuff, real tough. Cops and family court killed my mum. ANYWAY LIFE GOES ON. No hard feelings, yeah right!

My four children deserve better, but that is the kiwi way ,cops just do it and they get it wrong now and then. She'll be right mate.

I help good cops,however I detest rotten fools in uniform. I'll get my deserved apology one day, eh top brass?

Sunday, May 6, 2012

The tragic death of this 12 year old boy has really saddened me. I am working in New Brighton Mall doing my demo stuff , taking down a health food shop that was once the original grocery store for the area built early 1900's. It's a tricky job as the shop is located between a busy sub way and charity barn shops. Very unstable facade brick work that must come down. The young local lads enjoy watching us doing our demo stuff . Sadly in the school holidays I observed so many young dudes on the piss, drunk as skunks, high on something?? on skateboards at 11 O'clock in the morning! It was sad watching police and concerned people try to talk to these completely wasted young lads. I flashed back to my school yard days and was thankful for a loving mum and dad in the good old days of innocence when butane was something you could smell in the air at speedway. Oh hell,things have got bad out in the Eastern suburbs and I pray the spirit touches the lost and struggling youth of today.

Another tragic waste of human life. Child support is a sick and legalized extortion racket implemented by twisted gender bias government systems. Hundreds of decent fathers are shafted by the ruthless scum each year. These desperate dads denied access to their loved children are left no option but to flee the Inland Revenue blood money gatherers.I wonder how many good dads have departed from the planet after being forced into a no win situation by this disgraceful dysfunctional department?

Does referring to someone as "The Honourable" mean a privilaged person is a highly paid public servant, who is a pathological paid liar sucking on the socialist gravy train system, which is fully entrenched in hateful anti male bias feminist ideology?

The Minister for the Status of Women, Hon Gail Gago MLC, yesterday admitted in a Ministerial Statement that statistics on the Don’t Cross the Line respectful relationships website were incorrect and had been removed.
The incorrect and misleading material was brought to the attention of the Minister by leading men’s health organisation Men’s HealthAustralia and is still under investigation by the SA Ombudsman.
Spokesman Greg Andresen said, “We are pleased that the Minister now acknowledges that her campaign misled the public and the media for nine months about the reality of relationship abuse in Australia. However, her claim that the errors have been rectified couldn’t be further from the truth.”
“The original errors have been replaced by a page of statistics about violence against women. As the Minister notes, the underlying aim of the campaign is to educate young men and women about respectful relationships and about the difference between acceptable and abusive behaviour. To equate abusive relationship behaviour with violence against women is simply mind-boggling.”
“Firstly, at least one in three victims of family violence and abuse are male. Why has the minister deliberately misled the public in an attempt to deny that one third of victims – men and their children – exist? Secondly, most violence against women takes place outside of relationships – in the workplace, on the street, at the pub, etc. Why is the minister inflating statistics on relationship abuse by including these types of violence on the website?”Men’s Health Australia is supportive of all efforts to reduce interpersonal violence in the community but is concerned that the regular use of incorrect or misleading ‘statistics’ by Governments unfairly stigmatises men and boys as violent and abusive, while simultaneously denying services to male victims of violence.

They are also concerned that the Government’s approach is not in the interests of all children in families where there is abuse or violence, but selectively favours those children in families where violence is perpetrated by the father. The other one-third to half of children have to fend for themselves without support.
Men’s Health Australia is hopeful that the Ombudsman’s investigation will lead to the Don’t Cross the Line website presenting a balanced, accurate picture of relationship abuse, including statistics such as:

The recently released report, Intimate Partner Abuse of Men, by researchers at Edith Cowan University found that “Male victims of intimate partner abuse and their children suffer a range of consequences, such as psychological distress (including disorders such as depression and anxiety disorders), suicidal ideation, impaired self concept and loss of work.”

It found that male victims are often reluctant to disclose their experience of abuse or seek help because of their sometimes justified fears that they will not be believed, that they will not be assisted or will instead be blamed for the abuse.

“Understating the prevalence of relationship violence against men and their children makes it less likely that a man will be believed when he finally summons up the courage to disclose his partner’s abuse of him. It also allows Government to continue to develop family violence policies and campaigns that ignore male victims,” said Mr Andresen.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Interesting article from BBC. Here in New Zealand I became a men's right activist after I was shafted badly through unlawful male gender discrimination instigated by a feminist controlled court system. I took my complaint to the Human Rights Review Tribunal and now I owe the Crown $6K? My case was struck out and got hammered with costs!

I have made my point to politicians dressed as a Father4Justice Batman in Parliament some years back. I think this time the Bat returns things are to change big time. We men, want equal rights from a balanced system. Yeah right, dreams are free.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

I hope the corrupt New Zealand judge John Strettell reads this, maybe this creep will realise he is hell bound. He killed my mother. Fact ask anybody that works at Christchurch Family Court den of lies. Revenge is mine says the Lord.
I thought you'd like this:http://soc.li/swfQQrC
Divorce judge: most couples in Hello! magazine end up in my court within a year or two - TelegraphA serving High Court judge who is launching a public campaign this week to defend marriage said most couples who appear in Hello! magazine end up in his divorce court 'within a year or two.'